Over the years, Ive shot deep-sky targets at varying focal lengths from 50mm to over 1000mm. . I do know, however, that I can take an equally framed photo I've shot with my Canon kit lens, both zoomed to 100% I run circles around this guy. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! Hey Trevor, great article! I haven't seen compassion with the excellent Zeiss lens you quote (That BTW costs at least 3.5-4 times, yet a good comparison as similar to Zeiss, Samyang believes in providing the exceptional Image Quality, with Manual focus) but compare with Canon's L 135mm F2.0, that by many reviews, is considered as one the best Canon lenses ever made (Not . With no general agreement about what Bokeh is it is little wonder that there is so much argument and disagreement. I need fast auto-focus, predictable focus lock and natural, vibrant color rendition. Another lens to consider at this focal length (at maximum zoom) is the Rokinon 135mm F/2. Also, accurate guiding is essential. wew.. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. Excellent color and saturation, a virtually perfect lens. This lens is one of canons finest lenses i have ever used. The shallow depth of field present at its maximum aperture does indeed create a pleasing bokeh. Weight. Write your own user review for this lens. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. Pocketable. No one yet mentioned a zoom lens, I had an opportunity to test my Canon 24-105L f/4 on M31 Andromeda Galaxy and received wonderful results with Canon 60D unmoded, I set it to 105mm, No vignatting, slight coma on the corners and no false color on bright stars. Sharp wide open, wonderful bokeh, fast AF in dark conditions. It would not surprise me if modern lenses were useable at full aperture. Technical Specifications Looking for specific info? USM works so quickly and accurately, it puts my 24-70/f2.8L to shame. Juksu, your point is well taken. Even if I wanted a 135mm lens (and the 70-200mm f/2.8 is more versatile) it would be the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens. Rudy, why didn t you include any L lenses from canon? It's not the most versatile lens, but it's very great for tight portrait shoots; background blur is creamy IMO; one of the best 'bokeh' lens. The one and only 300mm lens I tested is the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 300mm F4. There are only a handful of foolproof strategies for making a great photograph. It could really use an update to its coatings. Thanks for the fine article and the thought you put into it. The 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 is another story.While the 135mm f/2, in general, is a good lens, there are lots of lenses other than the 135 f/2 that will produce a very smoothly blurred background, including zoom lenses.It sounds like Micael is new to photography.Just my impression from this article. "If you are a Nikon user, of course have a look at the Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC and compare it to the other lenses mentioned in this article. Can't argue with your reasoning, Juksu, about the framing of the article, but just stopping by to say I really liked that cat picture, am shopping for a new smartphone, struck that this type of photo is in another league - all newbie observations, of course, which sort of supports your thoughts that an article like this would be better framed as a "Love this new long lens stuff" sort of thing. I have just acquired my astrophotography set up thanks to all your videos and doing some research. Using the lens's diaphragm interferes with the light path and results in diffraction spikes which I find unattractive. The 135 L handles this well. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. Click on following link to view images I've done comparisons between my brand-new Samyang 85/1.4 and the old big Apollo 135/1.8 lens I had lying around, and the shots were for all practical purposes identical (exept, obviously, for the pixel count once cropped). It's tiny compared to almost everything else in the 85-135 range, and used properly, it can produce results that hold up to my DC (all other factors being equal such as subject distance, f-stop, lighting, etc.). It's kinda curious how topsy turvy things have gotten since this article, just 4 years later, I think 135mm is possibly more niche than ever yet Samyang finally delivered an AF version of this concept at a lighter weight for E mount, but also at a higher price. Stopping down would actually have improved the picture. Thanks.. BTW, the 300-mm Tele-Tessar you describe -- what camera was it made for? I bought it for its bokeh. Just plain black plastic (no interior felt as in newer lens hoods). Although this lens feels solid, it is rather light when compared to a telescope. Chromatic aberration is almost eliminated in narrowband, so lenses with that problem may be fine performers. Asahi Optical's Pentax KX was one of the first cameras with this lens mount, acting as a midrange model in the lineup. In 3 months I got loosy focus ring. What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? However, they can be perfectly corrected with narrow band H-alpha or OIII filters. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. I cant wait to try this lens out during the winter months on some wide-field targets in Orion. As rest you do just by cropping or stitching. I have only owned my 135mm for less then a year, but already it is one of my top three most used and most fun lenses. Otherwise I might not achieve focus? Based on my handful of experiences with this lens in the backyard, I have found these traits to hold true. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. If I got this lens, would it make more sense long term to get the Canon mount with a E mount adaptor so I could fit it more easily to a dedicated astro camera later? I dont mean to be rude, but I fail to see any photographic comparison or test to display the quality of this lens against others, concerning coma or anything else, except considerations on the manual focusing, its shape and ergonomic. The colder temperatures will make DSLR astrophotography much more practical, and there are plenty of great targets to choose from. Sure, if you scroll through his page there are quite a few lens tests on starshttps://www.flickr.chotos/ytoropin/, Community Forum Software by IP.BoardLicensed to: Cloudy Nights, Article: The Best Telephoto Lenses for Astrophotography, This is not recommended for shared computers, Review of Explore Scientific First Light 8, COUNTING SUNSPOTS WITH A $10 OPTICAL TUBE ASSEMBLY, Hubble Optics 14 inch Dobsonian - Part 2: The SiTech GoTo system, iStar Opticals Phantom FCL 140-6.5 review. (on a full frame camera)Wonderful lens for some portraiture applications, sporting events and candids at a party or event. Very sharp even at f2, build quality, price, weight, autofocus is fast, bokeh, No IS, flare, autofocus isn't quite as consistent as some newer lenses, focus speed, image quality, predictability, Image quality, build like a tank, focus ring, weight. In general, prime telephotos should outperform zooms. This is great news if you like to photograph small things up close. There was no reason to test any other because, when stopped down to 49mm, F6.1, this lens is simply perfect, comparable to any APO on the market. Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. These lenses can be had on eBay in mint condition for around $70, and are probably the most price efficient optical instrument in the world. Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. Sharpness, contrast and the natural vignetting on full-frame cameras is awesome! Digital camera types . With a good smartphone, some creative legwork, and the photos scaled down as they are in this article you can make photos that at least just as good. On the 135/2 all you've got is the bare metal. The Rokinon 135mm F2.0 is considered to be a full-frame lens because it can accommodate a full-frame image sensor with its 18.8-degree angle of view. I find 400gm as the tolerable weight limit for a lens on my panasonic gx85, and I am guessing following telephoto lenses would satisfy the itch to get good bokeh shots, 1. With an effective focal length of roughly 216mm when coupled with a Canon crop sensor body, the field of view is nearly identical to the one youd find on a full-frame camera with a 200mm telephoto lens. Instead it means the style of rendering. I was expecting a lot more of an article that says "the best telephoto lenses for astrophotography". Ive captured a lot of deep-sky astrophotography targets from the northern hemisphere, but Im usually in too deep to capture an entire region of space at once. Valerio, I sold my Canon Lens because in Nikon Lens there is a Defocus control option, very usefull in a daylight photos, as portrait. They account for much of the disagreement that we see on-line (but not for the rudeness and viciousness of some of it). image quality wise it is by far one the sharpest lenses ive ever used. Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. So, let's see where it falls short of perfection: It is harder work than using a zoom lens, and some shots I just cannot get at all (cannot get close enough, or far enough way) but the shots I do get are so much nicer looking than I get with any other lens that for me and my goals it is a fair trade off. I have an old 135/2.5 Takumar that is not bad at all, for the price. If you have a more appropriate portrait lens like an 85, 90 or 100, the 135 does not bring you very much. The lens is available on eBay for around $200. Beautiful portrait lens. People mistake "Bokeh" to blurry background, what is very very common mistake. But for many of us, somewhere in between, are plenty of short to mid-tele lenses that will deliver solid service (in terms of subject separation) without carrying around still another kilo for the sake of more blur. When stopped down to 37mm, F5.4, it is almost identical to the Takumar except that on highly enlarged images it shows a hint of coma in the distant corners. Used on a crop body the results are still splendid but you gain on DOF, making it a great combination for wedding/event and ambient/available light. To remedy this, I reduced the star size in post, and I started shooting at F/4 to really tighten things up. As you'd expect from a premium prime lens, both maximum and average chromatic aberration is very low across the aperture range, with the maximum CA on the order of 0.02% of frame height regardless of aperture. Photography is full of fuzzy concepts. I've owned a few L lenses and while their USM motors have always been quick to snap in focus, this 135mm is on a different level. Jordan has a simple fix camera manufacturers could implement to improve their video autofocus. I think the bokeh won me over with the cat, as well as the fact that I like animals; the case for the duck was the same. This includes everything from the rich star fields of Sagittarius, to a complete look at the Andromeda Galaxy. If this was used to shoot video you would think that the first image was using a green screen. The Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 includes a lens hood, lens pouch, front and rear lens caps, and a 1-year Rokinon manufacturer warranty. But the Rokinon f/2 version fits into a different market. No telephoto lens can be used with cameras modified by the removal of the internal UV/IR cut filter and anti-aliasing filter. If you don't like that article that's your right as a member. Some reviewers have listed lack of IS as a "Con". Take care not to confuse this lens with the 200mm F4 SMC Takumar 6x7 which has a different optical configuration, and which I have never tested. I'm thinking a modern (but expensive) Nikon 200mm f/2.0, 300mm f/4 or f/2.8 or a Borg telephoto/telescope would all be very good. Maybe try a 400mm f/2.0 to see it that one's got enough blur. Prime means that this lens is fixed at 135mm, it is not a zoom lens that allows for focal length adjustments. But you raise the exact point, that primes should be chosen with a 2x factor. The lenses I selected are all affordable prime lenses, easily available on the second-hand market, and adaptable to the EOS system. Even if the background is very close to your subject, somehow the optical construction in the 135mm lens will still manage to separate the background beautifully. Also, the newer and much more expensive 200mm F4 SMC Pentax with the K mount is decisively inferior, showing small but annoying red chromatic aberration. Otherwise this lens is absolutely incredible. Is it possible to get good results on a Baader filter modifed Canon 450D and a good telephoto lens, or do I need to get a good APO? This article was originally published on Micael's blog, and is being republished in full with express permission. I would be careful with the Nikon 135 f/2 DC (I have one). If they could make 135 f2 lighter version with AF for Sony and price is slightly under Sigma 135 /1.8 and obviously Batis 135 2.8 it could sell like hotcakes. Pentax seems to have put more emphasis than others on keeping the resolution uniform all over the field. It has no chromatic aberration, and no hint of star deformities in the corners. Selecting between it and the 200mm Takumar was not an easy choice but, in the end, I chose the Takumar because it seemed to have slightly better contrast. To prevent damage to the lens finish, apply nylon acorn nuts (or cap nuts) to the tips of the retaining ring's three alignment screws. For that I would investigate alternatives just to make sure. I mainly use for head shot photography. The aperture ring is marked with each f-stop, and you need to manually click through F/2 F/22 and watch the blades do their work. The latter are designed for crop sensor cameras and the back of the lens sticks too far into the body of the camera and would hit the EOS-clip filter. I have the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). Yes the Samyang is good and yes there are lenses with bad bokeh. The only thing that could possibly make this better would be to add IS. The 135 f/2 is not perfect. I've owned nice SLR gear since 1976, and am normally a wide angle shooter this is my favorite lens, of all time. Super sharp from f2. The APO showed no chromatic aberration at all with the addition of the Astronomik UV/IR cut clip filter (passing 380-680nm), but the telephoto lenses, even when stopped down, showed a tight bright red ring around all stars. Can I assume that this article applies only to full frame & not to micro four thirds? One is the price, which starts around $800 for the smallest units, and rapidly climbs into thousands of dollars for larger apertures. I can only guarantee that the TSAPO65Q would work very well. That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten. Round one of polls are now open, pick your winners and share your voice. Samyang 85mm f1.83. Not only does it let you travel light, but impressive wide field projects are often more successful when captured under a dark sky. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. Large focus ring. I have heard others mention that this lens has a plasticky build quality, but I believe this aspect has been improved. Let's unbox, review and test this lens to find out why it is one of the best bang for your buck deals in astrophotography! As in all arts the client's likes influence the result up to a point. Yeah I agree that the sentiment that they were designed to be used stopped down is wrong as they were designed to be used wide open because they had to be for speed (my point above). Super sharp and renders beautiful creamy bokeh. The rest are relatively uncreative, and just seem lame to me. This is the EF-M series version. I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l lens. Youll never have to worry about losing your position just by touching the lens, but you can always tape the position down to be sure. The Olympus Zuiko 180/2.8 and 100/2.8 impressed me in the 1980s, but in the digital era they are not so sharp. Neutral yet very nice colours. However, I am convinced that its large aperture and fast F ratio would perform exceptionally well in three color or narrow band H-alpha and OIII photography. The author's recipe for a good photo is:1) Just shoot blindly, with no regard to what's in the frame, because the lens will blur away everything on the background.2) If (1) does not work, just head on to https://www.bhphotovideo.com, download a jpg of the lens you were using, and photoshop it on top of the taillaits of the passig car that didn't get blurred out enough.3?) Aside from being much more affordable, telephoto lenses are easier to transport, easier to mount and easier to guide, and are much more likely to produce encouraging results to a beginner. Zoom lenses are entirely unsuitable for astrophotography due to prominent aberrations of every kind. It's a trade off. Its a joy to work with every time. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM (72mm filters, 0.9m/3' close-focus, 25.0 oz./708g, about $1,035.) Focus are dead on with my Fullframe or APS system. I recommend the author change the title of his article from "The Best Telephoto Lenses." to "Some Inexpensive Telephoto Lenses I Have Tested" The original title generates a claim and expectation in the reader that his article can't support that leads to reader frustration and just more questions; why didn't you test this one or do this etc. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. Lens hood - when I bought this lens years ago the included hood was rather cheap (perhaps Canon has updated the hood) by comparison with other hoods. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed October 5th, 2008 Oh and it's stabilised. f/2, fast-accurate-silent focus, (relatively) small & light, super sharp!! Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. What I am trying to avoid is spending another $1,100 on a quality APO, and instead using my existing Nikkor 180mm ED lens with a Baader-modified Canon 450D that I just obtained. That is kind of the point I am trying to make -- These pictures are really not in another league. Latter looks quite professional.. Orion nebula shot with Canon T3i and Rokinon 135mm @ F2.0 150 shots with dark bias and flats stacked and edited. The size (3.2 x 4.4"/82.5 x 112mm) and weight (1.7 lb/750g) (and color) of this lens are not imposing - you probably won't get much attent This lens provides all of these requirements. Since Eric was so generous to share his images with me, I had to include his photo of the Rho Ophiuchi cloud complex as well. The Andromeda Galaxy using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC lens. for sample photos and video tour, This is simply the best Canon prime lens that I have tested. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. I cant seem to find this documented anywhere. I heard it's very sharp and well corrected. The Nikon D810A, however, is modified for astrophotography out of the box. This is one of my all time favourites. We were surprised by just how much difference there was between these AI-powered image enlargers. Canon 300/4 ED IF AF (non-IS) I owned this lens for a long time, then traded it for the 70-200 2.8IS II. Olympus 75mm f1.82. We always expect to see some drop in performance (particularly corner sharpness) when we move from testing on a sub-frame to a full-frame camera, but the 135mm f/2L turned in a really remarkable performance even at full-frame.
